Search

The WADA Code upholds the virtues of procedural fairness. Minimum procedural guarantees have been strengthened under the 2021 WADA Code and the International Standard for Results Management. However, implementation of these guarantees by National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADOs) and domestic anti-doping panels are critical in ensuring that athletes are afforded procedural fairness. While some countries have enacted reforms in anti-doping dispute resolution infrastructure, other jurisdictions are arguably lagging behind. Since few doping disputes are heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), a strong domestic dispute resolution framework should encourage independence, efficiency and cost-effectiveness, as well as promote consistency and procedural fairness at all levels of hearing. First instance hearings are particularly significant given that CAS is not considered a practical option for many athletes, especially those from developing countries, predominately due to challenges of access to justice and affordability. Irrespective of procedurally unfair decisions at first instance, CAS has the de novo right of review to correct any such irregularities. However, this approach alone is inadequate, especially given that most athletes do not appeal to CAS. CAS, WADA and NADOs all have significant roles to play in ensuring procedural fairness for athletes. WADA and NADOs need to do more to ensure compliance with procedural guarantees at first instance. This paper advances the debate on the importance of procedural fairness and proposes a research agenda to support future reform, arguing that the current anti-doping model needs to reconsider how these important standards are upheld, from first instance until final appeal.

This article explores the implications of unprecedented commitments by leading international sports organizations to include human rights principles into their bidding requirements and hosting agreements. In May 2017, UEFA communicated their updated requirements for the 2024 tournament, which now explicitly refer to human rights protection. Four months later, the 2024 and 2028 Summer Olympic Games have been awarded to Paris and Los Angeles, for which the IOC drafted host city contracts that for the first time in thehistory of Olympic Games include human rights clauses. In November 2017, FIFA announced the adoption of new bidding requirements for the 2026 tournament, which expressly mention the protection of human rights. The aim of this article is to examine if and how such provisions and requirements could improve access to remedy for victims of human rights violations that occurred in the course of delivering mega-sporting events. In pursuing this aim, this article sheds light on the scope and enforceability of these measures and looks into the extent to which the Court of Arbitration for Sport is equipped to deal with human rights matters.

Contrary to popular perception of the legal profession, multi-tier arbitrations are neither new, nor uncommon phenomenon. With growing need of the community to arbitration becomes real, not just theoretical, alternative to judicial resolution of disputes, arbitration accepts more judicial characteristics, among which is one of the most important and at the same time controversial - multi-tiered dispute resolution. Multi-tiered arbitration proceeding is traditionally present in commercial and investment arbitrations. However, in recent decades, significant international arbitration institutions introduced the option for consensual review of arbitration awards. Sports law is an area where, by the end of the twentieth century, the phenomenon was unnoticed present. The international sports community, as a precondition for the survival of autonomous settlement of disputes, choose dispute settlement by arbitration, but with a number of significant modifications. One of the most specific is multi-tiered arbitration, especially regarding the most important cases. The main reason for such behaviour is the aspiration of the international sports community, following the example of national courts, to organize efficient, quality and final way of resolving disputes within its jurisdiction. Permanent Court of arbitration of the Olympic Committee of Serbia follows the mentioned logic, thanks to the provisions of the Sports Act and contrary to the Arbitration act, and introduces the possibility of reviewing its decision in front of the Court of arbitration for sport based in Lausanne.